Ad Hominem (Abusive)
Attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself, when the attack is irrelevant to the argument.
THE IDEA
Ad Hominem (Abusive)
argumentum ad hominem (also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, needling [form of], refutation by character)
Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
Logical Form: Person 1 makes claim X. Person 2 attacks Person 1 instead of addressing claim X. Therefore, claim X is false.
Example #1: Woman: “I think we should lower taxes.” Man: “Of course you do – you love your ice cream!”
Explanation: The fact that the woman loves her ice cream has nothing to do with the lowering of taxes, and therefore is irrelevant to the argument. The personal remark does not answer the policy argument.
Example #2: Tony: “I believe the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.” Critic: “You’re a godless SOB who spent more time in prison than in church!”
Explanation: Tony may be a godless SOB. Perhaps he did spend more time in the joint than in church. But all this is irrelevant to his argument or the truth of his claim about evolution.
Exception: When the attack on the person is relevant to the argument, it is not a fallacy. In our first example, if the issue being debated was the elimination of taxes only on Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, then her personal interest could be relevant to understanding her position. It would still not, by itself, refute the proposed tax policy.
Tip: When someone attacks you personally, ask how the remark bears on the claim. An irrelevant attack does not establish whether your argument is sound.
Variation: Needling is attempting to make the other person angry, taking attention off of the argument and perhaps even making the other person look foolish.
When to use it
Political debates: Candidates often attack each other’s character instead of addressing policy differences.
Online discussions: redirect name-calling toward the evidence for the claim being discussed.
Legal arguments: A lawyer might improperly attack a witness’s credibility on irrelevant personal matters.
Workplace meetings: A colleague dismisses an idea by criticizing the presenter’s background rather than the proposal’s merits.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Ice Cream Tax Debate
Woman: “I think we should lower taxes.” Man: “Of course you do – you love your ice cream!” Explanation: The woman’s affection for ice cream is irrelevant to the tax policy debate, making the man’s response an ad hominem fallacy.
Evolution and Character Attack
Tony: “I believe the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.” Critic: “You’re a godless SOB who spent more time in prison than in church!” Explanation: Tony’s personal character or beliefs do not affect the validity of his claim about evolution, so the attack is fallacious.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Recall a recent disagreement where someone attacked you personally. Was the attack relevant to the argument? How could you have redirected the discussion?
How can you identify when you are tempted to use an ad hominem attack in your own reasoning? What alternative counter-argument could you make?
In what situations might an attack on a person’s character be logically relevant? Give an example.
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Logically Fallacious - The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies